A  REVIEW 


•OF- 


THE     THEORY 


•OF- 


J.    K./ AT  WOOD. 


A  REVIEW 


-OF- 


THE      THEORY 


-OF- 


I] 


J.    B.    AT  WOOD 


SAN  DIEGO  CAL.: 
GOULD  &  HUTTON,   PRINTERS. 

1888. 


lo 


'  '1 


IS  THE  NEWTONIAN  THEORY  OF  GRAVITATION  TRUEP 


Before  submitting  objections  to  this  theory,  or  venturing  any 
suggestions  with  regard  to  it,  a  few  preliminary  considerations 
may  not  be  out  of  place. 

It  is  then  an  established  theory,  is  quite  generally  accepted, 
has  the  weight  of  authority  in  its  favor,  and  for  these  reasons  at 
least  is  more  formidable  to  combat. 

As  usual  in  such  cases  there  is  now  a  sort  of  chronic  faith  in 
its  validity,  that  was  conspicuously  absent  in  the  first  place,  and 
this  blind  barnacle — like  and  thoughtless  adherance  to  an  accepted 
matter,  is  always  a  bar  to  the  recognition  of  the  new,  although  a 
substantial  bulwark  in  support  of  the  old  and  well  established. 

The  theory,  too,  is  somewhat  plausible,  and  has  at  least  some 
appearances  in  its  favor,  but  this  is  no  more  than  can  be  said  of 
many  other  theories  that  are  false,  notwithstanding  some  seeming 
evidence  in  their  behalf. 

Now,  a  theory  may  be  true  and  have  seeming  objections,  but 
cannot  be  true  and  have  real  -objections,  or,  in  other  words,  truth 
admits  of  but  one  theory,  although  there  may  be  many  false  ones 
about  a  given  matter. 

In  combatting  a  false  theory,  it  is  not  necessary  to  know  the 
true  one,  however  desirable  that  may  be. 

Of  course  the  existence  and  manifestations  of  the  force  called 
attraction  are  not  here  questioned,  but  only  the  prevailing  views 
concerning  that  force. 

Now,  the  main  proposition,  or  rather  assumption,  of  this 
theory,  is  that  each  atom  of  matter  in  existence  attracts  and  is  in 
turn  attracted  by  every  other  atom  of  matter  wlitlre  universe:' 

It  is  also  further  assumed  in  this  connection, ,  tjiat,  the  force 
called  weight  is  nothing  but  the  mutual'att^acti^ri^ci"  :mtter  ;  that 
this  attraction  is  not  merely  a  local  but  a  universal  force,  and  "thaft 
the  heavenly  bodies  are  kept  in  their  respective  positions  by 
this  means. 

For  the  purpose  of  vindicating  these  assumptions  several 
others  were  at  the  same  time  made,  as  will  appear  in  this  investi- 
gation, prominent  among  which  are  certain  so-called  laws  of 
motion. 

Concisely  stated  then,  it  is  the  supposed  universal  feature 
of  attraction  that  constituted  Newton's  grand  discovery — or  possi- 
bly his  grand  mistake. 

We  are  now  squarely  confronted  with  this  problem  of  uni- 
versal gravitation,  and  while  some  of  the  objections  here  raised 
to  the  present  theory  may  be  only  suggestive  of  its  unsoundness, 
some  of  them  appear  to  be  absolutely  conclusive. 


731202 


4  A    REVIEW    OF   THE    THEORY    OF 

•> 

The  simple  statement  then  that  a  single  atom  of  matter  at- 
tracts every  other  atom  in  the  universe,  embodies  and  expresses 
the  real  essence  of  this  theory,  and  the  first  question  will  be,  what 
is  an  atom  ? 

That  question  cannot  at  present  be  positively  answered,  but 
the  nearest  approach  to  it  is  the  inference  that  it  is  an  individual 
and  indivisible  portion  of  what  is  called  matter. 

For  the  present  we  will  accept  this  view  of  it,  observing,  by 
the  way,  that  if  not  correct,  it  is  simply  bad  for  the  theory. 

The  first  step,  then,  will  be  to  obtain  something  like  an  approx- 
imate conception  of  the  size  of  a  single  atom  of  matter,  in  order 
to  form  a  proper  estimate  of  its  probable  capacity  for  the  duty 
assigned  it,  and  the  chief  difficulty  will  be  on  account  of  its  ex- 
treme minuteness. 

That  difficulty  is  so  great  for  the  reason  named,  that  we  can 
only  infer  from  certain  facts,  how  very  near  that  something  is  to 
nothing  at  all,  although  it  is  required  by  this  rigid  theory  to 
accomplish  nearly  everything,  not  even  excepting  impossibilities. 

If,  for  instance,  a  single  line  of  atoms  one  inch  in  length, 
containing  the  ordinary  number  in  solid  bodies,  was  divided  into 
loo  equal  parts,  and  one  of  these  parts  was  divided  also  into 
100  parts,  and  one  of  the  last  named  was  also  thus  divided, 
still  another  similar  div  ision  would  at  the  very  least  be  required 
to  get  down  to  the  dimensions  of  an  individual  atom. 

The  present  aim,  however,  is  not  so  much  the  actual  size  of 
the  atoms,  as  that  point  is  by  no  means  essential  in  this  connec- 
tion, for  if  they  were  a  thousand  million  times  larger  than  our 
estimate,  the  theory  of  universal  gravitation  would  scarcely  be 
less  absurd. 

.  Jhis  being  the^se,  ;we  will  rest  satisfied  with  the  statement 
that  thwart!}  «^nta*>hs*aver  i2,CKDo,oco,ox),CKX),coo,c>cKD,CKDO,ooo 
pounds  of  ^matter,  .antf  that"  there  are  more  atoms  in  a  pound  of 
m£tei»t$£(iKthere:£lre  pp«rM4s"m  the  entire  Earth. 

•''•ktiVit'is'riot  'the*  extreme  minuteness  of  the  atom  that  is  of 
such  special  significance  in  this  case;  it  is  the  tremendous  magni- 
tude of  the  burden  imposed  upon  it  by  this  presumptive  theory; 
for  in  contrast  with  the  almost  nothingless  atom  itself,  the  contract 
alloted  it  is  a  prodigious  one,  and  taken  in  connection  with  its 
other  ill-supported  and  extravagant  assumptions,  is  at  least  calcu- 
lated to  excite  suspicion,  if  not  to  raise  a  serious  doubt. 

The  next  step  will  be  to  discover  the  force  or  sum  of  the 
energy  that  is  decreed  this  smallest  of  all  things,  this  victim  of 
the  gravitation  hobby,  the  invisible  atom;  and  what  a  remarkable 
proposition  is  here  presented,  in  which  much  the  least  and  most 
definite  thing  in  existence,  although  numerically  the  greatest  of 
all  things,  is  yet  required  to  divide  and  distribute  its  patronage 
among  all  the  countless  host  of  atoms  in  the  boundless  universe. 


UNIVERSAL    GRAVITATION.  5 

Right  here,  for  once  at  least,  we  have  something  tangible, 
something  that  we  can  comprehend,  and  that  is  the  amount  of 
force  called  attraction  in  a  given  quantity  of  matter,  although  it 
is  not  at  all  clear  how  that  amount  should  be  divided  and  alloted. 

For  example,  about  four  cubic  inches  of  iron  weigh  a  pound 
at  the  surface  of  the  earth,  and  this,  according  to  the  Newtonian 
theory,  represents  the  entire  force  exerted,  not,  however,  by  this 
particular  mass  of  matter  separately  and  alone,  but  in  combina- 
tion with  the  rest  of  the  earth. 

How,  then,  is  this  pound  of  force  to  be  adjusted?  and  what 
proportion,  if  any,  is  there  due  to  the  earth? 

The  Newtonian  theory  is  not  very  lucid  on  this  point,  as 
well  as  on  some  others,  and  we  are  thus  left  to  seek  a  solution  of 
this  problem. 

Two  suggestions  at  least  on  this  question  seem  to  require 
consideration.  In  the  first  place,  then,  is  the  energy  equally  due 
to  the  two  masses?  and,  in  the  second  place,  is  it  in  proportion 
to  the  masses  ? 

If  we  accept  the  first  proposition,  certain  unpleasant  conse- 
quences legitimately  follow,  a  few  of  which  are  here  enumerated. 

That  a  small  part  is  equal  to  a  much  larger  part ;  also  that 
attraction  is  not  the  property  of  an  atom  of  matter,  but  is  the 
property  of  two  or  more  atoms  ;  and  further,  that  the  sum  of  this 
energy  possessed  by  a  single  atom  is  entirely  contingent  upon  the 
whole  number  of  atoms  in  the  universe  ;  and  still  further,  that  if 
the  universe  was  ten  times  as  large  as  it  is,  an  atom  of  matter, 
although  no  larger  than  before,  would  yet  possess  ten  times  the 
attractive  energy. 

The  second  proposition  that  the  force  is  proportional  to  the 
mass,  seems  much  the  more  rational  of  the  two  ;  but  it  has  one 
very  unpromising  feature  for  this  theory,  inasmuch  as  that  would 
plainly  indicate  that  this  vaunted  energy  is  a  very  insignificant 
and  contemptible  item  for  the  sphere  alloted  it. 

A  much  more  sensible  solution  of  this  matter  is,  that  the 
entire  weight  of  a  pound  of  matter  is  due  only  to  that  specific 
mass.  But  that  would  upset  the  whole  programme  of  universal 
gravitation. 

In  following  the  second  plan  of  this  gravity  campaign  then, 
we  shall  find  that  instead  of  a  mass  of  matter  weighing  one  pound, 
and  commonly  and  probably  correctly  supposed  to  possess  and 
exert  a  pound  of  force,  it  does  no  such  thing  according  to  this 
theory  ;  but  on  the  contrary,  only  exerts  such  a  fractional  part  of 
a  pound  as  that  specific  mass  is  a  proportional  part  of  thf  entire 
earth  ;  and  if  expressed  in  numbers,  the  result  would  be  substan- 
tially like  the  following,  1 2, 000,000,000,000,000, ooo, 000,000  parts, 
or  twelve  septillions  of  the  pound  of  force,  is  due  to  the  earth's 
attraction  ;  and  only  one  part  of  the  pound  of  attraction  is  due 


6  A    Ri.YIKU     ()!•    T1IK    THEORY    OF 

to  the  smaller  mass  commonly  supposed  to  weigh  a  pound  itself. 

Or,  in  other  words,  according  to  this  theory  the  above  ex- 
ample furnishes  a  pretty  fair  measure  of  the  energy  possessed  and 
exerted  by  a  mass  of  matter  weighing  one  pound,  which  it  will 
be  perceived,  is  about  as  much  less  than  a  pound  as  a  pound  is 
less  than  the  whole  number  of  pounds  in  the  earth. 

What  is  true  then  of  four  cubic  inches  of  iron  or  one  pound 
of  matter,  is  also  true  of  one  atom  of  matter  ;  hence  we  see  that 
the  entire  attractive  energy  of  an  atom  of  matter  is  as  much  less 
than  the  atom  itself  as  the  atom  is  less  than  the  whole  number  of 
atoms  in  a  pound  of  matter;  and  there  are  more  atoms  in  a 
pound  of  matter  than  there  are  pounds  of  matter  in  the  entire 
earth  ;  consequently,  the  atom  and  its  whole  attractive  force  may 
IK-  appropriately  expressed  in  the  same  manner  as  in  the  example 
of  the  earth  and  pound. 

Thus  1 2,c>oo,ooo,oc>o,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo  ooo  represents  the  mag- 
nitude of  the  atom,  and  only  one  is  required  to  represent  the 
relative  proportion  of  its  attractive  force  ;  or,  in  words  instead  of 
figures,  twelve  septillions  indicates  the  size  of  an  atom,  and  only 
a  single  unit  its  energy  in  comparison  with  its  dimensions. 

If  the  effort  then  which  this  theory  so  rigidly  prescribes  for 
the  atom  is  enormous  in  proportion  to  its  size,  what  must  it  be  in 
comparison  with  its  attractive  energy. 

But  these  illustrations  will  fail  to  convey  anything  like  a  just 
appreciation  of  the  absurdity  involved  in  this  problem  of  the  in- 
significant atom  and  its  utterly  insignificant  force,  unless  a  little 
consideration  is  bestowed  upon  the  immense  field  of  its  operations. 

And  what  is  that  field  ?  Surely  not  the  nearest  atom  even  in 
an  ounce  of  matter  containing  more  than  a  septillion  of  similar 
atoms  ;  neither  is  it  confined  to  the  ounce,  nor  the  pound,  nor  the 
entire  earth. 

It  is  not  even  restricted  to  the  solar  system,  some  half  million 
times  larger  than  the  earth  ;  but  the  field  includes  the  whole  uni- 
verse, with  its  countless  millions  oi  suns  and  systems  of  worlds  ; 
and  we  may  well  exclaim,  what  a  vineyard  is  this  !  and  what  a 
task  for  such  an  insignificant  and  so  utterly  debilitated  a  laborer  ! 

To  convey  anything  like  an  adequate  idea  of  the  immensity 
of  the  universe  is  simply  an  impossibility  ;  but  for  the  present  we 
will  note  the  point,  that  it  takes  thousands  of  years  for  light  trav- 
eling nearly  200,000  miles  a  second  to  reach  the  earth  from  some 
of  the  distant  stars  or  suns,  and  this  amazing  distance  is  indicative 
of  only  an  insignificant  part  of  the  unfathomable  universe. 

Now,  the  entire  attractive  energy  of  the  earth  if  concentrated 
upon  a  single  distant  star,  if  indeed  there  is  any  force  at  all  in 
such  a  case,  is  less  than  one  ounce  ;  but  the  earth,  according  to 
Newton's  laws  of  force  and  motion,  could  not  exert  any  greater 
part  of  its  attraction  upon  a  remote  star  than  when  radiated 


UNIVERSAL    GRAVITATION.  7 

equally  in  all  directions  would  be  in  a  line  with  that  star  ;  and  as 
many  hundred  thousand  millions  of  stars  would  be  required  to 
fill  the  space  at  that  distance,  it  is  clear  that  the  actual  force,  if 
any,  in  such  a  case  would  be  many  hundred  thousand  million 
times  less  than  a  single  dram. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  attractive  force  of  a  pound  of 
matter  is  twelve  septillions  less  than  the  earth's  attraction.  What, 
then,  are  we  to  think  of  the  attractive  energy  of  only  a  single 
atom  in  such  a  case,  the  size  of  -which  is  more  than  three  septil- 
lions less  than  a  cubic  inch,  with  a  corresponding  decrease  of 
energy  as  compared  with  its  dimensions,  and  still  the  universe 
would  be  even  then  scarcely  invaded? 

But  there  are  still  other  absurdities  involved  in  this  assumed 
universal  attraction  of  an  atom,  for  if  each  atom  of  matter  exerts 
its  force  upon  every  other  atom,  that  force  which  is  originally  so 
insignificant  as  to  be  entirely  beyond  ascertainment,  must  not  only 
be  extended  infinitely  beyond  conception,  but  be  divided  beyond 
the  power  of  language  to  adequately  express. 

It  must  not  only  act  through  unlimited  distance  upon  an  un- 
limited number  of  other  atoms,  but  also  through  an  unlimited 
number,  equal  to  itself  in  magnitude  and  energy  without  being 
intercepted  by  them  ;  and  as  every  other  atom  must  do  the  same 
thing,  what  an  infinity  of  currents,  cross  currents,  counter  cur- 
rents, confused,  bewildered  and  mixed  currents  of  energy  is  thus 
implied,  and  how  entirely  unlike  the  economy,  the  simplicity,  the 
harmony  and  the  order  of  nature  in  all  other  respects. 

An  atom  of  matter,  in  keeping  with  this  remarkable  theory, 
must  constantly  and  uninterruptedly  exert  its  energy  in  every 
direction  and  in  every  pla-.e  however  minute,  in  order  to  contin- 
ually reach  every  other  atom  ;  in  short,  the  imperceptible  atoms 
are  so  small  it  would  be  necessary  for  a  single  atom  of  matter  to 
completely  pervade  and  entirely  fill  the  universe  with  its  force, 
notwithstanding  its  own  entire  energy  is  so  contemptible  an  item, 
otherwise  some  stray  atom  might  escape  its  influence,  which 
would  be  detrimental,  if  not  absolutely  fatal,  to  this  whole  gravi- 
tation scheme. 

If  one  single  atom  of  matter  then,  should  fill  the  universe 
entirely  full  of  its  all  prevading,  never  ending,  never  decreasing, 
but  ever  active  energy,  and  every  other  atom  not  forgetting  that 
there  is  some  of  them  should  do  the  same  thing  with  the  fullness 
thereof,  a  most  incomprehensible  and  indescribable  fullness  would 
prevail. 

An  atom  of  matter  notwithstanding  it  is  so  exceedingly  minute 
that  its  whole  area  is  only  about  a  hundred  millionth  part  of  an 
inch,  the  smallest  possible  point,  is  yet  required  by  this  theory  to 
hold  energetic  communication  with  all  the  untold  number  of 
atoms  in  the  unlimited  universe. 


8  A    REVIEW    OF     THE    THEORY    OF 

A  mere  point  itself,  that  would  be  entirely  enveloped  by  a 
single  line  far  beyond  the  reach  of  the  microscope,  and  with  its 
infinitesimal  force  a  septillion  of  times  less  than  its  own  propor- 
tions, must  for  all  that,  and  still  other  far  more  insurmountable 
difficulties,  send  out  from  its  little  sphere  more  than  a  septillion  of 
lines  to  intercept  and  connect  with  merely  the  atoms  in  a  single 
ounce  of  matter. 

What  a  problem  then  is  here  presented,  when  we  consider 
that  the  Earth  contains  twelve  septillions  of  pounds,  while  the 
Solar  system  is  some  500,000  times  greater  than  that,  and  the  en- 
tire universe  more  than  100,000,000  times  greater  than  the  Solar 
system. 

Nor  is  this  the  only  difficulty  that  menaces  this  proposition, 
for  this  single  atom  must  at  the  same  time  make  room  for  the 
reception  of  an  equal  number  of  lines  of  communication  from 
every  other  atom  in  return,  and  what  is  still  more  embarrassing, 
not  only  this,  but  all  the  other  atoms  are  in  rapid  and  ceaseless 
motion  over  immense  areas  of  space. 

These  atoms  have  not  only  an  endless  motion  of  their  own, 
but  the  situation  is  still  further  complicated  by  several  additional 
movements. 

For  instance,  an  atom  of  matter  besides  its  own  continuous 
motion,  may  be  located  in  the  end  of  a  lively  mosquito's  wing, 
while  the  aforesaid  mosquito  is  buzzing  at  his  best  speed,  and  at 
the  same  time  he  is  also  being  moved  bodily  by  the  wind,  and  if 
in  the  equatorial  regions,  where  an  additional  movement  occurs 
of  over  a  thousand  miles  an  hour,  which  is  further  supplemented 
by  the  orbital  motion  of  the  Earth  at  the  rate  of  more  than  18 
miles  a  second,  besides  the  additional  movement  of  the  Earth 
in  concert  with  the  Solar  system. 

At  the  same  time  all  the  other  atoms  in  the  universe  are  lead- 
ing a  similar  lively  and  interesting  dance,  to  the  utter  confusion 
and  complete  discomfiture  of  this  complex  snarl  of  a  theory, 
through  creating  a  tangled  and  inconceivable  web  of  intricacies, 
that  no  imagination  can  begin  to  fathom  or  understand. 

If  there  was  but  one  single  atom  of  matter  in  the  universe, 
there  would  of  course  be  no  use  for  attraction  of  gravitation,  as 
there  would  be  nothing  to  act  on,  notwithstanding  its  assumed 
active  and  everlasting  hankering  for  the  embrace  of  kindred  atoms. 
But  with  two  atoms  the  troubles  commence,  and  continue  to 
multiply  with  the  increase  in  numbers,  for  it  would  legitimately 
follow  that  the  universe  would  be  twice  full  of  energy  with  no 
where  to  store  or  deposit  it;  and  that  no  matter  what  the  distance 
between  them  might  originally  be,  their  first  efforts  would  be  to 
rush  together  in  mutual  and  final  embrace,  thereby  establishing  a 
most  damaging  precedent,  and  precipitating  a  most  awkward  pre- 
dicament; in  the  very  first  instance  for  this  peculiar  theory. 


UNIVERSAL    GRAVITATION. 


If  they  would  not  do  this  what  becomes  of  this  theory  ? 

If  they  would,  why  is  there  more  than  one  body  in  the  uni- 


verse i 


Let  the  next  supposition  embrace  three  instead  of  two  atoms, 
and  still  substantially  the  same  results  would  follow  as  in  the  case 
of  only  two  atoms. 

In  harmony  with  the  theory  of  universal  gravitation  the  two 
nearest  atoms  would  rush  together  first,  and  then  the  third  would 
be  added  to  the  mass,  thus  making  as  in  the  case  of  two  atoms 
but  one  final  body  of  matter;  nor  would  any  possible  arrange- 
ment of  their  original  positions  prevent  such  a  result,  not  even  if 
they  were  arranged  in  an  equilateral  triangle,  the  only  way  in 
which  they  could  be  equally  distant  from  each  other,  as  that 
would  not  prevent  them  if  really  possessed  of  this  supposed  prop- 
erty of  attraction,  from  coming  together  at  their  common  center. 

The  same  would  be  true  of  four  atoms,  or  for  that  matter  of 
any  other  number,  including  all  the  atoms  in  the  universe;  in  fact, 
that  would  only  serve  to  increase  the  liability,  as  the  greater  the 
accummulation,  the  stronger  the  attraction  for  the  balance,  for  the 
unanswerable  reason  that  two  atoms  would  have  twrice  the  at- 
traction of  one. 

This  being  the  case,  it  follows  that  in  strict  harmony  with 
this  theory  of  universal  attraction,  all  matter  would  be  combined 
in  one  single  mass;  yet  we  well  know  that  there  are  hosts  of  sep- 
arate bodies,  in  spite  of  this  ridiculous  theory,  which  legitimately 
should  make  but  one;  nor  has  it  been  shown  that  any  other  pos- 
sible result  but  a  single  body,  would  follow  the  application  and 
operation  of  this  assumed  universal  force. 

The  atom  will  now  be  given  a  brief  respite  while  attention  is 
being  directed  to  a  very  different  sphere  of  action,  and  to  other 
prominent  features  of  this  scheme  of  universal  gravitation. 

The  principal  theatre  of  operations  in  this  field  was  supposed 
to  be  in  connection  with  the  various  and  complex  movements  and 
relative  positions  of  the  heavenly  bodies;  and  this  theory  pro- 
fesses to  elucidate  and  explain  all  the  motions  of  those  masses, 
with  their  varied  connections  and  relations  to  each  other  satis- 
factorily as  a  true  theory  should. 

In  this  professed  explanation  that  is  so  graciously  vouchsafed 
for  our  guidance  and  enlightenment,  a  special  diagram  is  furnished 
consisting  of  a  circle  with  a  single  mass  in  the  center  of  large 
volume  representing  the  Sun,  while  a  much  smaller  mass  or 
sphere  is  located  on  the  circular  line  to  represent  the  Earth. 

Now,  the  present  theory  of  planetary  movements  embodies 
Newton's  grand  discovery,  and  these  movements  are  assumed  to 
be  due  to  the  combined  action  of  two  independent  and  opposing 
forces,  operating  in  right  lines  and  at  right  angles  to  each  other, 
one  of  which  is  claimed  to  be  attraction,  while  there  is  a  large 


10  A    REVIEW    OF   THE   THEORY    OF 

degree  of  obscurity  and  ambiguity  about  the  other  force,  although 
that  force  whatever  it  may  be,  is  far  the  more  important  of  the  two 
in  spite  of  this  obscurity,  if  indeed  it  is  not  the  only  force  in- 
volved in  the  planetary  problem. 

In  the  operation  of  these  supposed  forces  a  central  body  is 
involved  like  the  Sun,  and  outside  of  this  at  a  distance  as  per 
diagram,  are  other  bodies  moving  in  their  respective  paths  or  or- 
.  bits  like  the  Earth  for  instance,  while  an  impelling  energy  of  some 
unknown  sort  causes  a  forward  movement,  which  unresisted  would 
simply  move  the  Earth  in  a  straight  line  at  a  tangent  with  what 
would  become  a  circle  of  a  certain  size,  when  counteracted  and 
just  counter-balanced  by  another  force  called  attraction. 

Special  attention  is  here  directed  to  the  fact  that  the  diagram 
for  illustrating  these  movements  is  simply  a  circle  showing  the 
Earth's  path  at  a  uniform  distance  from  the  central  mass;  and 
that  the  impelling  energy  is  a  uniform  or  unvarying  force,  while  the 
attractive  force  is  a  variable  one. 

If  the  combined  action  of  two  such  forces  could  move  one 
body  around  another  at  all,  which  is  exceedingly  doubtful,  it 
could  evidently  be  only  under  certain  specific  conditions. 

One  requirement  would  be  a  circular  path  of  the  outside  or 
moving  mass,  the  inner  mass  would  have  to  be  at  the  center,  the 
path  of  the  inner  body  would  have  to  be  precisely  where  the  two 
forces  would  balance  each  other  just  as  indicated  in  the  diagram, 
and  there  could  not  be  other  influences  to  disturb  the  relative  in- 
fluence and  effect  of  these  two  forces. 

But  these  are  not  the  conditions  under  which  the  heavenly 
bodies  move  and  are  kept  in  their  respective  positions  and  orbits. 
Take  the  Earth  for  example.  The  orbit  is  not  a  circle; 
the  Sun  is  not  in  the  center;  the  forces  are  not  balanced;  the 
bodies  vary,  and  there  are  numerous  influences  to  disturb  and 
destroy  the  equilibrium  of  two  such  forces. 

These  supposed  forces  could  not  move  the  Earth  around  the 
Sun  in  the  present  path  and  manner,  because  they  will  not  bal- 
ance each  other  at  all  parts  of  an  eliptical  orbit. 

If  the  impelling  force  at  any  time  or  point  should  exceed  the 
attractive,  the  Earth  wonld  fly  off  into  space  because  the  ascend- 
ency of  the  moving  force  would  from  that  time  be  relatively  great- 
er, in  consequence  of  the  diminishing  attraction  by  reason  of  the 
increasing  distance  between  the  two  bodies ;  while  on  the  other 
hand  if  attraction  should  on  account  of  the  nearer  approach  of  the 
Earth  to  the  Sun  at  any  part  of  its  orbit  become  relatively  greater 
than  the  other  influence,  the  Earth  instead  of  continually  revolv- 
ing around  the  Sun,  would  simply  be  drawn  into  contact  with  it 
in  a  track  not  unlike  a  coiled  spring,  on  account  of  the  continually 
increasing  energy  of  attraction  to  that  point. 

This  will  be  better  comprehended  if  we  substitute  one  of  the 


UNIVERSAL    GRAVITATION.  II 

comets  for  the  Earth  where  the  departure  from  a  circular  path  or 
orbit  is  so  decisively  marked,  and  where  the  attractive  force  is  al- 
leged to  be  so  very  much  greater  at  the  point  nearer  the  Sun. 

But  if  it  would  be  a  difficult  matter  for  two  such  forces  to  main- 
tain even  a  circular  movement  of  one  mass  around  another,  which 
is  the  only  one  possible  ;  it  would  be  vastly  more  difficult  to  in- 
augurate such  a  movement,  as  there  would  be  conditions  required 
of  very  doubtful  occurrence. 

The  moving  body  would  have  to  be  outside  of  the  orbit  or 
point  at  which  the  forces  would  balance  each  other;  and  moving  at 
a  fixed  rate  of  speed  not  less  than  that  of  its  speed  in  its  orbit  if 
one  could  possibly  result  from  such  causes  it  would  have  to  be 
moving  in  precisely  the  right  direction,  and  free  from  the  influence 
of  disturbing  causes. 

In  short  this  idea  of  propelling  one  mass  around  another  in 
a  circle  as  an  illustration  of  the  actual  origin  and  present  means  by 
which  the  real  movements  were  caused  and  are  still  maintained,  is 
indeed  a  very  bald  affair;  not  merely  misapprehending  the  actual 
state  of  things,  but  vainly  endeavoring  to  make  the  bastard  sub- 
stitute perform  impossibilities  through  the  use  of  means  entirely 
inadequate  and  inappropriate,  without  any  legitimate  connection, 
and  involving  insurmountable  difficulties. 

In  fact  the  contingencies  are  so  numerous  and  important,  that 
they  render  the  problem  of  inaugurating  or  maintaining  by  such 
means  anything  like  the  planetary  movemets,  or  even  such  a  single 
movement  as  the  one  illustrated,  too  absurd  to  seriously  entertain; 
besides  if  such  a  thing  as  this  circular  movement  was  entirely 
practical  and  feasible,  it  would  still  be  of  no  consequence,  as  there 
are  no  such  movements  known. 

The  Newtonian  theory  then  not  only  practically  ignores  all 
the  other  movements  of  the  planets  except  this  substitute,  but  even 
fails  to  deal  with  the  real  orbital  motion,  in  spite  of  .the  fact  that 
this  was  its  objective  point. 

Now  while  the  single  movement  that  has  been  substituted  for 
the  real  motion  is  entirely  different,  so  that  the  effort  to  explain  the 
real  one  is  a  flat  failure;  the  whole  attempt  is  farcical,  in  view  of  the 
assumption  that  the  movements  of  the  heavenly  bodies  are  all  due 
to  the  operation  of  two  such  forces  as  this  theory  contemplates. 

For  what  an  awkward  predicament  is  presented  by  the  signifi- 
cant fact  that  the  very  movement  that  has  been  so  badly  botched 
and  obscured,  could  only  have  occurred  if  at  all  around  a  fixed 
point,  instead  of  around  an  already  rapidly  moving  mass;  and  a 
central  point  or  mass  at  rest,  was  precisely  what  was  contemplated 
in  connection  with  this  false  movement;  but  how  about  the  other 
and  prior  motion,  which  this  half  fledged  scheme  neither  contem- 
plated nor  could  do  anything  with  if  it  had? 

An  inspection  of  the  Earth's  orbit   suggests  another   telling 


12  A    REVIEW   OF   THE   THEORY    OF 

point  against  this  gravitation  hobby,  in  the  fact  that  the  move- 
ment on  opposite  sides  of  the  Sun  is  in  precisely  opposite  direc- 
tions; and  of  course  the  force  or  cause  of  the  movement  must  act 
in  strict  harmony  with  that  fact. 

Now  a  force  acting  in  a  straight  line  must  come  from  a  given 
direction,  while  the  Earth's  orbit  plainly  and  unmistakeably  im- 
plies a  force  acting  upon  the  Earth  in  the  direction  that  it  moves, 
and  in  the  curved  path  and  plane  of  that  orbit;  besides  a  force 
from  one  direction  only  would  not  accomplish  this  result,  or  for 
that  matter  anything  resembling  it ;  but  would  simply  offer  the 
same  resistance  on  one  side  of  the  sun  to  the  earth's  movement 
as  that  very  force  imparted  to  it  on  the  other. 

In  short,  the  idea  of  propelling  one  mass  around  another  by 
a  straight  line  force  is  not  even  on  par  with  proposing  to  blow  a 
man  around  a  barn  with  the  wind  from  one  direction  only. 

If  it  is  suggested  that  a  single  impulse  could  cause  the  present 
orbital  movement  in  conjunction  with  attraction,  the  reply  will  be 
the  conditions  render  that  impossible. 

There  would  in  such  a  case  be  not  only  the  principal  obstacles 
already  enumerated,  but  other  contingencies  still  more  formidible. 

Indeed,  the  problem  is  too  serious  and  complex  for  solution, 
and  could  not  in  the  nature  of  things  occur  ;  as  the  fixed  central 
mass  is  an  illusion,  the  force  would  have  to  come  from  precisely 
the  right  direction  and  be  exactly  sufficient  to  produce  the  present 
definite  movement;  besides  there  is  not  the  least  evidence  of  the 
existence  of  any  such  force  or  any  use  for  it ;  and  a  solid  body 
like  a  planet  could  not  possibly  stand  the  shock  of  such  an  impact. 

If  the  heavenly  bodies,  or  any  of  them,  the  earth  and  moon 
for  instance,  were  really  kept  in  position  with  each  other,  as 
alleged,  by  mutual  attraction,  they  should  revolve  nearly  around 
the  center  of  gravity  of  the  two  bodies  as  if  rigidly  connected  ; 
that  center  would  be  considerably  outside  the  mass  of  the  earth, 
and  the  earth  would  have,  if  that  were  true,  an  orbit  of  a  very 
different  description,  as  would  also  the  moon. 

After  Newton's  conception  that  attraction  of  gravitation  was 
a  universal  instead  of  a  local  force,  and  that  the  same  force  that 
causes  a  body  to  fall  or  move  towards  the  centre  of  the  earth  also 
keeps  the  heavenly  bodies  in  their  respective  orbits,  he  labored 
long  and  arduously  to  demonstrate  the  truth  of  his  supposed  dis- 
covery, and  finally  selected  the  earth  and  moon  as  a  satisfactory 
example  of  the  harmonious  combination  and  operation  of  the 
two  forces  claimed  to  cause  and  control  the  planetary  movements. 

And  he  is  generally  supposed  to  have  worked  out  a  complete 
demonstration  of  his  theory,  chiefly  by  means  of  this  single 
example. 

To  accomplish  this  result  he  made  several  new  propositions 


UNIVERSAL    GRAVITATION.  13 

upon  which  the  truth  of  this  theory  depends,  some  of  which  are 
here  enumerated  : 

That  attraction  decreases  as  the  square  of  the  distance. 

That  the  correct  unit  of  distance  for  this  purpose  is  four 
thousand  miles. 

That  this  unit  is  just  the  radius  of  the  earth. 

And  that  the  distance  between  the  earth  and  moon  is  sixty 
times  the  radius  of  the  earth. 

But  the  grand  assumption  was  that  through  these  alleged 
facts,  he  claimed  to  have  completely  demonstrated  the  truth  of 
his  theory  of  universal  gravitation,  simply  by  proving  that  the 
moon  followed  the  law  of  falling  bodies  on  the  earth,  and  that 
this  was  due  to  the  same  cause  that  makes  an  object  move  towards 
the  center  of  the  earth,  styled  attraction  of  gravitation. 

Now,  the  moon  does  not  follow  the  law  of  falling  bodies,  and 
the  difference  between  the  two  movements  in  point  of  fact  and 
resemblance  is  a  very  marked  and  substantial  difference,  and  we 
will  note  some  of  the  variations. 

A  falling  body  either  moves  in  a  straight  line  or  a  parabolic 
curve,  while  the  moon  does  neither,  but  simply  moves  in  a  curved 
path  that  is  slightly  cliptical. 

A  falling  body  has  a  limited  movement,  while  the  moon  has 
a  continuous  movement. 

A  falling  body  has  an  accelerated  movement,  while  the  moon 
has  a  comparatively  uniform  movement. 

Newton  evidently  overlooked  these  serious  discrepencies,  as 
well  as  many  others  still  more  serious,  in  his  eagerness  to  mount 
this  gravitation  hobby  successfully  ;  for  he  seems  to  have  risked 
this  whole  structure  of  assumed  universal  gravitatation  finally  on 
a  single  point  or  proposition,  and  a  most  ludicrous  one  at  that. 

This  point  was,  that  the  moon  lalls  towards  the  earth,  or 
curves  in  its  movement  around  it,  allowing  for  the  difference  in 
the  intensity  of  the  force  or  attractive  energy  the  s»me  propor- 
tional amount  in  a  single  second  of  time  that  a  body  falls  at  the 
surface  of  the  earth  in  that  time. 

That  statement,  even  if  true,  is  of  no  significance  at  all  as 
proof  of  the  truth  of  this  theory  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  well 
calculated  to  mislead  rather  than  aid  in  the  discovery  of  the  truth, 
and  this  singular  proposition  did  undoubtedly  deceive  Newton  as 
well  as  others. 

What  if  the  moon  does  move  as  alleged  for  one  second  of 
time  the  same  amount  in  proportion  to  the  force  that  a  body  falls, 
how  is  it  for  two  seconds  ?  or  three  ?  or  any  other  number  ? 

It  is  entirely  different,  as  we  plainly  see. 

Thus  this  vaunted  agreement  only  applies  to  a  single  second, 
if  indeed  it  does  to  any  one,  and  that  only  the  first  ;  but  how  is  it 


14  A    REVIEW   OF   THE   THEORY    OF 

for  the  next  succeeding  second  ?  Why,  only  one-fourth  as  much 
of  course. 

How  is  it  for  the  third  ? 

The  difference  is  still  greater,  and  so  on  for  each  succeeding 
second. 

In  feet,  no  just  comparison  can  be  instituted  between  a  uni- 
form movement  and  an  accelerated  one,  and,  as  stated,  there  is 
no  significance  at  all  in  the  circumstance  that  the  two  movements 
are  the  same  for  a  single  second,  whether  first,  second  or  third; 
as  they  could  not  help  being  the  same  for  some  given  period,  for 
the  simple  reason  that  the  uniform  movement  of  the  Moon  is  rel- 
atively faster  than  the  other  at  first,  but  is  soon  exceeded  by  the 
other,  and  that  would  be  true  of  any  two  similar  movements. 

Indeed  they  will  agree  for  just  one  period  of  time,  and  only 
one,  for  the  reason  stated — that  the  uniform  motion  of  the  Moon 
is  relatively  faster  than  the  accelerated  motion  of  a  falling  body 
during  the  first  part  of  a  second  that  a  body  begins  falling;  and 
slower  than  the  latter  part  of  its  accelerated  movement,  as  it  would 
have  to  be  in  order  to  be  equal  in  amount;  but  no  comparison 
at  all  can  be  made  with  the  next  second,  or  any  other  period  of  time; 
while  it  is  clear  that  the  movements  should  be  the  same  for  any 
and  all  periods  if  there  was  any  real  connection  between  them. 

We  shall  also  perceive,  notwithstanding  the  vaunted  fact  that 
the  Moon  and  a  falling  body  may  move  a  proportional  amount  in  a 
second  of  time,  that  there  would  only  be  a.  brief  portion  of  that 
time  in  which  the  two  motions  would  be  the  same,  while  at  all 
other  times  they  would  radically  disagree. 

We  shall  perceive  too,  that  if  their  movements  agree  in 
amount  for  one  second  of  time,  that  they  would  not  agree  even  in 
that  respect;  if  a  second,  which  is  a  mere  arbitrary  portion,  and 
not  a  natural  division  of  time,  had  been  either  longer  or  shorter, 
as  it  might  just  as  well  have  been,  for  there  are  no  natural  divis- 
ions of  duration,  and  the  conclusion  is  irresistible,  that  if  a  second 
had  marked  a  different  period  of  time,  this  famous  discovery,  or 
still  more  famous  blunder,  would  never  have  been  made. 

What  sort  of  a  foundation  is  this  for  a  professed  scientific 
theory  to  rest  on  ? 

But  aside  from  the  fact  that  there  is  no  real  connection  or  re- 
lation between  these  movements,  and  that  he  might  with  equal 
propriety  have  instituted  a  comparison  between  the  movements 
of  the  Moon  and  that  of  a  lunatic,  the  additional  fact  remains  to 
blast  this  theory,  that  the  distance  between  the  Earth  and  Moon 
varies  at  times  about  fourteen  per  cent,  or  eight  times  the  radius 
of  the  Earth. 

This  fact  when  taken  in  connection  with  the  circumstance 
that  his  demonstration  was  held  in  abeyance  a  long  time,  by  an  in- 
correct estimate  of  the  Earth's  radius,  is  really  inexplicable. 


UNIVERSAL   GRAVITATION.  15 

Yet  still  another  obstacle  was  encountered  with  reference  to 
the  radius  of  the  Earth  being  the  real  unit  of  measurement  for  de- 
termining the  variation  in  the  intensity  of  the  attractive  energy, 
because  in  order  to  make  the  assertion  that  attraction  like  light 
varies  according  to  the  square  of  the  distance  even  a  plausible 
one,  it  was  necessary  in  this  instance  at  least,  to  recognize  the 
center  of  the  Earth  as  the  starting  point. 

But  here  was  a  snag;  for  that  would  imply  that  attraction  is 
nothing  but  a  local  force,  which  is  probably  true,  and  would,  if 
accepted,  collapse  this  whole  scheme  of  universal  gravitation. 

The  radius  of  the  Earth  was  therefore  necessarily  taken  as  the 
proper  unit  of  measurement,  not  because  it  was  true,  but  because 
the  theory  compelled  it  for  this  special  purpose,  while  universal 
gravitation,  if  true,  is  not  contingent  upon  centers,  as  the  entire 
mass  is  involved  regardless  of  form,  whether  applied  to  the  Moon 
or  an  object  near  the  surface  of  the  Earth. 

To  obviate  this  difficulty  Newton  claimed  that  the  real  effect 
of  the  Earth's  attraction  was  just  the  same  on  the  Moon  and  also 
on  objects  near  its  surface,  as  if  the  whole  mass  of  the  Earth  was 
concentrated  at  its  center. 

But  this  is  not  the  case  as  a  very  simple  illustration  will  show. 

For  example,  suppose  an  object  at  the  surface  of  the  Earth  to 
weigh  a  certain  amount;  then,  if  the  entire  mass  of  the  Earth  was 
concentrated  at  its  center,  this  object  would  weigh  less  than  it  did, 
provided  it  remained  in  the  same  place,  on  account  of  the  in- 
creased distance  from  the  force;  and  the  fact  that  the  same  amount 
of  matter  next  to  the  object  would  relatively  lose  in  being  removed 
to  the  center  about  four  times  as  much  as  a  similar  amount  on  the 
opposite  side  of  the  Earth  would  gain  in  being  transferred  to  that 
point;  while  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  object  was  moved  as  near 
the  center  as  it  was  to  the  surface,  it  would  weigh  more  than  be- 
fore with  the  force  all  concentrated  at  the  center. 

The  center  of  the  Earth  then  is  not  the  point  at  which  the 
entire  attraction  for  an  outside  mass  would  be  the  same  as  at  pres- 
ent, provided  the  whole  mass  was  concentrated  at  that  point,  and  the 
real  point  is  very  difficult  to  determine,  but  it  seems  clear  that  this 
point  would  be  considerably  one  side  of  the  center,  which  fact 
taken  in  connection  with  the  moon's  eccentricity,  effects  his 
assumed  unit  of  4,000  miles  most  seriously. 

It  is  very  plain  that  conditions  like  these  completely  vitiate 
his  rules  and  estimates,  which,  after  all,  seem  to  be  nothing  but 
loosely  formed  theoretical  speculations  or  mere  vagaries. 

This  will  be  still  more  evident  when  the  relative  amount  of 
the  two  forces  involved  in  Newton's  problem  is  taken  into  con- 
sideration as  it  should  have  been. 

According  to  his  second  law  of  motion,  which  is  in  a  certain 
local  scene  correct,  and  which  was  intended  to  meet  this  particular 


l6  A    REVIEW    OF     THE    THEORY    OF 

case,  although  it  evidently  fails  to  do  so,  as  he  would  have  found 
to  his  dismay,  if  he  had  thoroughly  investigated  it,  as  he  should; 
still  he  fancied  that  attraction  was  the  force  that  caused  a  planet  to 
deviate  from  a  straight  line  in  harmony  with  that  law. 

The  law  is  as  follows,  and  when  applied  to  a  local  case  and  a 
secondary  motion  may  be  correct;  the  alteration  of  motion  is  ever 
proportional  to  the  moving  force  impressed,  and  is  made  in  the 
direction  of  the  right  line  in  which  that  force  acts. 

If  we  apply  this  law  to  planetery  motion,  it  is  evident  that  the 
force  called  attraction  would  have  to  be  somewhere  near  the  same 
amount  as  the  other  impelling  force  or  forward  movement;  and 
especially  should  it  be  uniform  in  its  application  and  operations; 
but  how  is  it  ? 

In  the  case  of  the  Sun  and  Earth,  only  one  pound  of  at- 
tractive force,  if  any,  is  pitted  against  a  force  of  over  three  hun- 
dred thousand  horse  power;  between  the  Earth  and  Moon  the 
same  amount  of  energy  is  opposed  to  over  six  hundred  thousand 
horse  power,  while  in  the  case  of  the  Sun  and  Neptune,  the  dif- 
ference is  over  forty-five  million  horse  power,  and  there  are  in- 
stances that  far  transcend  even  this. 

But  if  this  attempt  to  account  for  one  single  motion  of  a 
planet  and  only  one,  and  that  to\the  motion  in  its  orbit  is  such  a 
dismal  failure;  so  complete  in  short  that  the  real  motion  is  un- 
touched and  a  glaringly  inappropriate  substitute  improvised  in  its 
stead,  which  is  also  utterly  useless,  as  it  will  neither  operate  ac- 
cording to  the  design,  nor  would  be  of  any  consequence  if  it 
did,  we  may  then  justly  ask  in  view  of  such  an  unsatisfactory 
solution  of  this  movement,  what  shall  be  done  with  all  the  other 
movements  where  this  theory  is  still  more  balky  ? 

Take  the  motion  of  the  Earth  on  its  axis  for  instance,  where 
neither  of  the  requirements  of  this  theory  exist  at  all,  there  being 
no  separate  and  independent  central  mass,  and  of  course  no 
mutual  attraction  between  two  bodies,  and  where  there  could  be 
no  possible  application  of  a  force  that  acting  alone  will  only  move 
an  object  in  a  right  line. 

Here  then  we  have  a  motion  that  cannot  be  produced  by  any 
such  means  as  Newton's  scheme  contemplates;  and,  of  course, 
it  was  not  produced  in  any  such  manner;  but  still  it  must  have 
been  caused  in  some  way,  and  that  is  a  serious  matter  for  this 
theory,  as  it  implies  another  and  entirely  different,  theory. 

Taking  then  this  motion  alone,  no  one  would  think  of  it  in 
connection  with  Newton's  programme;  and  the  difficulty  is  only 
increased  when  the  orbital  motion  is  coupled  with  it,  and  is  still 
further  complicated  by  the  motion  with  the  Solar  system. 

Or  take  the  moon  for  instance,  which  has  four  movements — 
one  around  its  own  axis,  one  around  the  Earth,  another  with  the 
Earth  around  the  Sun,  and  still  another  with  the  Solar  system,  all 


UNIVERSAL    GRAVITATION.  1 7 

of  which  this  theory,  if  true,  should  clearly  explain  and  account 
for,  which  it  most  assuredly  does  not,  and  at  the  same  time  it 
should  be  free  from  real  objections. 

On  the  contrary  it  is  besi^with  the  most  fatal  objections,  and 
does  not  even  attempt  to  deal  with  the  real  motions,  but  only  a 
substitute  for  one  of  them,  and  a  very  poor  likeness  at  that. 

The  more  this  matter  is  analyzed  the  more  absurd  it  appears. 
Take  for  instance  the  only  motion  that  it  is  supposed  to  contem- 
plate, namely,  the  orbital  movement,  and  that  of  the  Moon  for 
example,  and  what  do  we  find?  Instead  of  a  body  revolving 
around  a  fixed  point  or  center  as  an  object  might  be  whirled 
around  a  revolving  shaft  if  connected  with  the  shaft  by  a  cord, 
we  perceive  a  very  complex  movement  of  an  entirely  different 
character. 

First  there  is  the  motion  of  the  entire  Solar  system,  Earth 
and  Moon  included,  that  this  Moon-struck  theory  does  not  even 
attempt  to  approach.  Next  we  find  the  Earth  with  another 
movement  around  the  Sun  which  is  not  circular  but  eliptical,  with 
a  daily  motion  besides;  and,  finally,  the  orbital  motion  of  the 
Moon  around  the  Earth,  while  this  motion  is  also  eliptical  instead 
of  circular,  besides  being  spiral  and  curved  around  the  eliptical 
path  of  the  Earth. 

Now,  it  is  not  pretended  that  a  single  force  will  produce 
alone  anything  but  a  straight  line  movement,  and  nothing  but  a 
circular  motion  in  conjunction  with  attraction;  but  here  is  a 
movement  that  is  neither  straight  nor  circular,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, it  is  spiral,  eliptical  and  curved",  besides  partaking  of  the 
Sun's  movement,  and  has  a  rotary  motion  added. 

But  one  of  the  most  withering  points  for  this  Moon-blind 
theory  is  found  in  the  very  example  that  Newton  selected  to  prop 
it  up  with.  Now,  he  claimed  that  the  mutual  attraction  of  the 
Earth  and  Moon  overcame  the  other  force  in  a  certain  ratio,  and 
that  amount  is  about  thirteen  times  as  much  as  it  is  between  the 
Earth  and  Sun,  while  between  the  Earth  and  Moon  the  mutual 
attraction  compared  to  the  other  force  is  at  the  same  time  less 
than  half  as  much  as  between  the  Earth  and  Sun. 

Here  is  a  striqtly  legitimate  test  of  the  truth  of  this  theory  of 
Newton's,  and  this  fact  alone  completely  demolishes  his  super- 
ficial and  theoretical  moonshine  hash,  labeled  universal  gravitation. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


REC'D  LD 


REC'D  i_D 


JUL  20'64 -7PM 


AUG1    1960 


20W64JC 


REC'D  LD 


(*.** 


JAN  15 '64 -9  AM 


10 

O 


7'70-4PM 


LD  21A-50m-4,'60 
(A9562slO)476B 


rary 

Univertity  of  California 
Berkeley 


U.C.  BERKELE 


CDblBI 


31202 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


